It's hard to argue with your reasoning... One could make the argument that there still were some interesting cars produced during the "dark ages" like the Mercedes 6.9, BMW 3.0CSi, Porsche 911, etc. and we could argue that Studebaker would have had the opportunity to shine against the uniformly dull American offerings by offering something to compete with, say, BMW... but unfortunately they'd already committed to McKinnon power in '65. Can you imagine a Studebaker with a smog-spec Ch*vy 305 under the hood, or worse yet, a 267? eep.

I may be getting off topic, but I actually remember AMC passing up a similar opportunity... they introduced the Eagle (4WD version of the old Hornet/Concord chassis) at about the same time as the Audi Quattro. The Quattro rocked the rallying world, but for some reason AMC decided to market the Eagle as simply a practical bad-weather car when it really wouldn't have been *all* that difficult to produce a stickshift Kammback version of the Eagle and send a couple guys out to compete... a special edition with a Torsen center diff instead of the transfer case would have been nice... oh well. Such is life; AMC is officially no more with the death of the Jeep 4.0 engine and life goes on.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

N8N

02-08-2008, 12:12 PM

It's hard to argue with your reasoning... One could make the argument that there still were some interesting cars produced during the "dark ages" like the Mercedes 6.9, BMW 3.0CSi, Porsche 911, etc. and we could argue that Studebaker would have had the opportunity to shine against the uniformly dull American offerings by offering something to compete with, say, BMW... but unfortunately they'd already committed to McKinnon power in '65. Can you imagine a Studebaker with a smog-spec Ch*vy 305 under the hood, or worse yet, a 267? eep.

I may be getting off topic, but I actually remember AMC passing up a similar opportunity... they introduced the Eagle (4WD version of the old Hornet/Concord chassis) at about the same time as the Audi Quattro. The Quattro rocked the rallying world, but for some reason AMC decided to market the Eagle as simply a practical bad-weather car when it really wouldn't have been *all* that difficult to produce a stickshift Kammback version of the Eagle and send a couple guys out to compete... a special edition with a Torsen center diff instead of the transfer case would have been nice... oh well. Such is life; AMC is officially no more with the death of the Jeep 4.0 engine and life goes on.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

tutone63

02-08-2008, 01:00 PM

Now, before I get a lot of unpleasant responses, or get my post deleted, let me explain. I cannot say that I am glad that Studebaker failed, but I must admit, that since it did fail, I am glad that it did so when it did.

This is only my second post, so forgive me if I am a little to long winded. This was just something I was thinking about the other day.

Before I go much further, let me explain that I am no stranger to the post-war American auto industry. I think that the cars that came out from 1947-1972 are some of the best and entertaining cars ever created. Whether they are Pontiac, Dodge, Mercury or my favorite (of course) Studebaker.

Most of us know the history of Studebaker from 1946 to its demise in 1966, so I will not rehash that. Most of us know why they failed, thus I will not go into that either, instead, lets look at what happened in the American auto industry at that time.

In 1964 a pivotal car was released, the Pontiac GTO. It was the first time a large muscular engine was placed into a standard sized car. Shortly thereafter, Ford released the Mustang, which we all know went down in history as the first pony car. These two creations started a horsepower war that reached its peak in the early 70's. By then, every make was in on it, Chevy, Pontiac, Dodge, Plymouth, Ford, even AMC. (Studebaker would have had the Daytona and Avanti, if they had survived. Although the Avanti was in on this as well by this time as its own company....but we all know that.)

All this wonderful horsepower, though, caught the attention of Washington, and we had ourselves, for the first time, real regulations on the auto industry that hurt design, horsepower, and even style.

First horsepower was dropped due to emissions controls. Then the whole safety issue came into effect causing five-mile-an-hour bumpers and side marker lights. Right when all of these sanctions were starting to be implemented, the gas crisis struck, further causing woe to the auto industry. All of this happened around 1973, give or take. Because of this, in my opinion, most cars released after 1973 are some of the ugliest, sluggish, boring things ever to hit the highway, with the exception of a few (very few) standouts.

Now to the point of why I am glad that Studebaker failed when it did. They did not have to suffer the embarrassment, indignity and shame of that time period. Now, I am sure that they could have overcome all of that...as far as design goes, but it still would have been a terrible shame. In my opinion, the last of the "real" cars came out in the mid-1970s. Thankfully, Studebaker was done by then, thus making them produce nothing but great cars from their birth to their death. And there is something to be said for that.

StudeRich

02-08-2008, 01:15 PM

Yes you are right! I cannot imagine a poor little 170 c.i. OHV Six struggling along with an EGR valve, a catalytic converter, lower compression, and unleaded fuel, in a Station Wagon, loaded, trying to get up a hill!!!:D

My one of only 2 NEW cars, and non-Studebaker cars EVER, a '76 Plymouth Volare Premere Wagon (318 V-8) was in the shop at the Dealer, and they loaned me a 225 slant 6 Volare 2dr. quite new, loan car. Well this poor thing would be like the Stude. Six, really SICK! That was a terrible car, bogged down with all the EGR, Cat and only the emission stuff of the day, nothing close to what we have NOW! Those 225 c.i. slant Sixes USED to be peppy little engines, but that 1976 Calif. smog stuff killed the performance completely!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

StudeRich

02-08-2008, 01:15 PM

Yes you are right! I cannot imagine a poor little 170 c.i. OHV Six struggling along with an EGR valve, a catalytic converter, lower compression, and unleaded fuel, in a Station Wagon, loaded, trying to get up a hill!!!:D

My one of only 2 NEW cars, and non-Studebaker cars EVER, a '76 Plymouth Volare Premere Wagon (318 V-8) was in the shop at the Dealer, and they loaned me a 225 slant 6 Volare 2dr. quite new, loan car. Well this poor thing would be like the Stude. Six, really SICK! That was a terrible car, bogged down with all the EGR, Cat and only the emission stuff of the day, nothing close to what we have NOW! Those 225 c.i. slant Sixes USED to be peppy little engines, but that 1976 Calif. smog stuff killed the performance completely!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

8E45E

02-08-2008, 01:38 PM

quote:Originally posted by N8N

It's hard to argue with your reasoning... One could make the argument that there still were some interesting cars produced during the "dark ages" like the Mercedes 6.9, BMW 3.0CSi, Porsche 911, etc. and we could argue that Studebaker would have had the opportunity to shine against the uniformly dull American offerings by offering something to compete with, say, BMW... but unfortunately they'd already committed to McKinnon power in '65. Can you imagine a Studebaker with a smog-spec Ch*vy 305 under the hood, or worse yet, a 267? eep.

I may be getting off topic, but I actually remember AMC passing up a similar opportunity... they introduced the Eagle (4WD version of the old Hornet/Concord chassis) at about the same time as the Audi Quattro. The Quattro rocked the rallying world, but for some reason AMC decided to market the Eagle as simply a practical bad-weather car when it really wouldn't have been *all* that difficult to produce a stickshift Kammback version of the Eagle and send a couple guys out to compete... a special edition with a Torsen center diff instead of the transfer case would have been nice... oh well. Such is life; AMC is officially no more with the death of the Jeep 4.0 engine and life goes on.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I will have to agree that Studebaker got spared the effects of the automotive 'dark ages' that descended upon North America in the late '70's for the reasons mentioned. You will not get an unpleasent response from me!:) As we know, the Avanti II suffered from the 'cowcatcher' front bumper to comply with sucky-seventies regulations. (So yes Nate, I can imagine a smog choked Chevy-engined Studebaker.) But if Studebaker followed the likes of International, White, Reo, and became a truck producer only, then we may have something to show from that sh**ty era. Today, there are more people collecting Dodge Warlocks, L'il Red Express Trucks, and Corvette-dash-Peterbilt 359's from those years than passenger cars. They were unencumbered by bumper regulations, and emissions at the time, and most of the big rigs will have the last of the 'classic' look before aerodynamics took over the design of them.

Craig

8E45E

02-08-2008, 01:38 PM

quote:Originally posted by N8N

It's hard to argue with your reasoning... One could make the argument that there still were some interesting cars produced during the "dark ages" like the Mercedes 6.9, BMW 3.0CSi, Porsche 911, etc. and we could argue that Studebaker would have had the opportunity to shine against the uniformly dull American offerings by offering something to compete with, say, BMW... but unfortunately they'd already committed to McKinnon power in '65. Can you imagine a Studebaker with a smog-spec Ch*vy 305 under the hood, or worse yet, a 267? eep.

I may be getting off topic, but I actually remember AMC passing up a similar opportunity... they introduced the Eagle (4WD version of the old Hornet/Concord chassis) at about the same time as the Audi Quattro. The Quattro rocked the rallying world, but for some reason AMC decided to market the Eagle as simply a practical bad-weather car when it really wouldn't have been *all* that difficult to produce a stickshift Kammback version of the Eagle and send a couple guys out to compete... a special edition with a Torsen center diff instead of the transfer case would have been nice... oh well. Such is life; AMC is officially no more with the death of the Jeep 4.0 engine and life goes on.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I will have to agree that Studebaker got spared the effects of the automotive 'dark ages' that descended upon North America in the late '70's for the reasons mentioned. You will not get an unpleasent response from me!:) As we know, the Avanti II suffered from the 'cowcatcher' front bumper to comply with sucky-seventies regulations. (So yes Nate, I can imagine a smog choked Chevy-engined Studebaker.) But if Studebaker followed the likes of International, White, Reo, and became a truck producer only, then we may have something to show from that sh**ty era. Today, there are more people collecting Dodge Warlocks, L'il Red Express Trucks, and Corvette-dash-Peterbilt 359's from those years than passenger cars. They were unencumbered by bumper regulations, and emissions at the time, and most of the big rigs will have the last of the 'classic' look before aerodynamics took over the design of them.

Craig

DEEPNHOCK

02-08-2008, 01:44 PM

But 'failed' is not the correct word.
The board of directors 'chose' not to participate in the automobile production and sales business.
They 'chose' not to update production lines, body styles, drivetrain components.
The comatose organization was left to wither to the point that shutting it all down was preferrable to other alternatives.
By this point the efforts and funding had all gone elsewhere.
Little hope for a suitable organ donor was found, so the 'body Studebaker' was unplugged from life support and the close relatives were left to carry on.
Just an opinion.
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by tutone63

Now, before I get a lot of unpleasant responses, or get my post deleted, let me explain. I cannot say that I am glad that Studebaker failed, but I must admit, that since it did fail, I am glad that it did so when it did.
&lt;snip&gt;

PackardV8

02-08-2008, 01:47 PM

Greetings, tutone63,

quote:In 1964 a pivotal car was released, the Pontiac GTO. It was the first time a large muscular engine was placed into a standard sized car.

You may get considerable disagreement with the above statement from the '56J Group. The 352" Packard V8 in the Lowey/Bourke hardtop K-body was the quickest/fastest car of its day. Contemporary roadtests show it outrunning Corvettes, something the GTO could never claim.

PackardV8

PackardV8

02-08-2008, 01:47 PM

Greetings, tutone63,

quote:In 1964 a pivotal car was released, the Pontiac GTO. It was the first time a large muscular engine was placed into a standard sized car.

You may get considerable disagreement with the above statement from the '56J Group. The 352" Packard V8 in the Lowey/Bourke hardtop K-body was the quickest/fastest car of its day. Contemporary roadtests show it outrunning Corvettes, something the GTO could never claim.

PackardV8

paintim613

02-08-2008, 02:11 PM

No argument on the "fortuitous" timing of Studebaker's demise. But I must disagree with the statement that the GTO and Mustang started the hosepower war. That war was well under way by the mid-50's when all major players were trying to outhorsepower each other annually. Some of the monster engines built before 1960 had to be seen and driven to be believed.

Tim-53 Studebird in Yuma, AZ

paintim613

02-08-2008, 02:11 PM

No argument on the "fortuitous" timing of Studebaker's demise. But I must disagree with the statement that the GTO and Mustang started the hosepower war. That war was well under way by the mid-50's when all major players were trying to outhorsepower each other annually. Some of the monster engines built before 1960 had to be seen and driven to be believed.

Tim-53 Studebird in Yuma, AZ

52-fan

02-08-2008, 03:00 PM

From our standpoint the best thing about Studebaker going out when it did was that it came before the day of lean manufacturing. This left a good stock of parts to keep some of the cars going until the club got established. Many later cars have a shortage of older parts due to the dealers not keeping much inventory. Many of us would not have been able to afford to get started with our Studes if we had to pay what many other hobbists pay for their parts. Of course, as our supply dries up we are seeing higher prices for some items.

1952 Champion Starlight, 1962 Daytona, 1947 M5. Searcy,Arkansas

52-fan

02-08-2008, 03:00 PM

From our standpoint the best thing about Studebaker going out when it did was that it came before the day of lean manufacturing. This left a good stock of parts to keep some of the cars going until the club got established. Many later cars have a shortage of older parts due to the dealers not keeping much inventory. Many of us would not have been able to afford to get started with our Studes if we had to pay what many other hobbists pay for their parts. Of course, as our supply dries up we are seeing higher prices for some items.

1952 Champion Starlight, 1962 Daytona, 1947 M5. Searcy,Arkansas

tutone63

02-08-2008, 03:04 PM

quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

Greetings, tutone63,

quote:In 1964 a pivotal car was released, the Pontiac GTO. It was the first time a large muscular engine was placed into a standard sized car.

You may get considerable disagreement with the above statement from the '56J Group. The 352" Packard V8 in the Lowey/Bourke hardtop K-body was the quickest/fastest car of its day. Contemporary roadtests show it outrunning Corvettes, something the GTO could never claim.

PackardV8
Thank you for mentioning that. I had no idea. I will have to look into that one.

tutone63

02-08-2008, 03:04 PM

quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

Greetings, tutone63,

quote:In 1964 a pivotal car was released, the Pontiac GTO. It was the first time a large muscular engine was placed into a standard sized car.

You may get considerable disagreement with the above statement from the '56J Group. The 352" Packard V8 in the Lowey/Bourke hardtop K-body was the quickest/fastest car of its day. Contemporary roadtests show it outrunning Corvettes, something the GTO could never claim.

PackardV8
Thank you for mentioning that. I had no idea. I will have to look into that one.

tutone63

02-08-2008, 03:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by 52-fan

From our standpoint the best thing about Studebaker going out when it did was that it came before the day of lean manufacturing. This left a good stock of parts to keep some of the cars going until the club got established. Many later cars have a shortage of older parts due to the dealers not keeping much inventory. Many of us would not have been able to afford to get started with our Studes if we had to pay what many other hobbists pay for their parts. Of course, as our supply dries up we are seeing higher prices for some items.

From our standpoint the best thing about Studebaker going out when it did was that it came before the day of lean manufacturing. This left a good stock of parts to keep some of the cars going until the club got established. Many later cars have a shortage of older parts due to the dealers not keeping much inventory. Many of us would not have been able to afford to get started with our Studes if we had to pay what many other hobbists pay for their parts. Of course, as our supply dries up we are seeing higher prices for some items.

But 'failed' is not the correct word.
The board of directors 'chose' not to participate in the automobile production and sales business.
They 'chose' not to update production lines, body styles, drivetrain components.
The comatose organization was left to wither to the point that shutting it all down was preferrable to other alternatives.
By this point the efforts and funding had all gone elsewhere.
Little hope for a suitable organ donor was found, so the 'body Studebaker' was unplugged from life support and the close relatives were left to carry on.
Just an opinion.
Jeff[8D]

I see your point.

tutone63

02-08-2008, 03:09 PM

[quote]Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

But 'failed' is not the correct word.
The board of directors 'chose' not to participate in the automobile production and sales business.
They 'chose' not to update production lines, body styles, drivetrain components.
The comatose organization was left to wither to the point that shutting it all down was preferrable to other alternatives.
By this point the efforts and funding had all gone elsewhere.
Little hope for a suitable organ donor was found, so the 'body Studebaker' was unplugged from life support and the close relatives were left to carry on.
Just an opinion.
Jeff[8D]

I see your point.

wise raymond

02-08-2008, 03:28 PM

GOOD EVENING, I,am sorry to disagree but. can u imagine if thay had brought out the new little car called the studebaker swallow possible around 1966-68 getting 2-3 years jump start on the compation fords,pinto or chevy,chevet,ect. the could have made a new 4 cyl engine thay could have put a turbo on it. maybe 2.3or a 2.5. that surtly would have beeteen the big 3 again posible repetting what churchills lark did for them in 59. i have driven cryslers 2.2 turbo and fords 2.3 turbo and the go a loat better then ther normal ones.

rawise

wise raymond

02-08-2008, 03:28 PM

GOOD EVENING, I,am sorry to disagree but. can u imagine if thay had brought out the new little car called the studebaker swallow possible around 1966-68 getting 2-3 years jump start on the compation fords,pinto or chevy,chevet,ect. the could have made a new 4 cyl engine thay could have put a turbo on it. maybe 2.3or a 2.5. that surtly would have beeteen the big 3 again posible repetting what churchills lark did for them in 59. i have driven cryslers 2.2 turbo and fords 2.3 turbo and the go a loat better then ther normal ones.

rawise

DEEPNHOCK

02-08-2008, 04:15 PM

What I cannot envision is the Studebaker corporation re-tooling for a 4 cylinder engine, even in cast iron, with a light duty trans to go with it. Shoot, even the change to a 13" tire and wheel would mean all new wheel end components. Even if they outsourced it all, I just can't envision them doing it.
But I can envision the boardroom squabbles![}:)]
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by wise raymond

GOOD EVENING, I,am sorry to disagree but. can u imagine if thay had brought out the new little car called the studebaker swallow possible around 1966-68 getting 2-3 years jump start on the compation fords,pinto or chevy,chevet,ect. the could have made a new 4 cyl engine thay could have put a turbo on it. maybe 2.3or a 2.5. that surtly would have beeteen the big 3 again posible repetting what churchills lark did for them in 59. i have driven cryslers 2.2 turbo and fords 2.3 turbo and the go a loat better then ther normal ones.

rawise

DEEPNHOCK

02-08-2008, 04:15 PM

What I cannot envision is the Studebaker corporation re-tooling for a 4 cylinder engine, even in cast iron, with a light duty trans to go with it. Shoot, even the change to a 13" tire and wheel would mean all new wheel end components. Even if they outsourced it all, I just can't envision them doing it.
But I can envision the boardroom squabbles![}:)]
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by wise raymond

GOOD EVENING, I,am sorry to disagree but. can u imagine if thay had brought out the new little car called the studebaker swallow possible around 1966-68 getting 2-3 years jump start on the compation fords,pinto or chevy,chevet,ect. the could have made a new 4 cyl engine thay could have put a turbo on it. maybe 2.3or a 2.5. that surtly would have beeteen the big 3 again posible repetting what churchills lark did for them in 59. i have driven cryslers 2.2 turbo and fords 2.3 turbo and the go a loat better then ther normal ones.

rawise

wpsrea

02-08-2008, 05:05 PM

Having been very much in tuned to the era of the late '50s/early'60s, the Mustang and GTO may not have started/invented the horsepower race they certainly put it on the front page. Most of the big motored cars of that time were also the big bodied cars of that time. Conpared to the every day drivers, they certaining did feel fast. Please don't get me wrong, I have owned several of these cars and it still like them. But the mid to late '60s is where the horsepower is.

wpsrea

02-08-2008, 05:05 PM

Having been very much in tuned to the era of the late '50s/early'60s, the Mustang and GTO may not have started/invented the horsepower race they certainly put it on the front page. Most of the big motored cars of that time were also the big bodied cars of that time. Conpared to the every day drivers, they certaining did feel fast. Please don't get me wrong, I have owned several of these cars and it still like them. But the mid to late '60s is where the horsepower is.

N8N

02-08-2008, 05:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by tutone63

quote:Originally posted by 52-fan

From our standpoint the best thing about Studebaker going out when it did was that it came before the day of lean manufacturing. This left a good stock of parts to keep some of the cars going until the club got established. Many later cars have a shortage of older parts due to the dealers not keeping much inventory. Many of us would not have been able to afford to get started with our Studes if we had to pay what many other hobbists pay for their parts. Of course, as our supply dries up we are seeing higher prices for some items.

From our standpoint the best thing about Studebaker going out when it did was that it came before the day of lean manufacturing. This left a good stock of parts to keep some of the cars going until the club got established. Many later cars have a shortage of older parts due to the dealers not keeping much inventory. Many of us would not have been able to afford to get started with our Studes if we had to pay what many other hobbists pay for their parts. Of course, as our supply dries up we are seeing higher prices for some items.

From a purely STYLING standpoint only, I can remember thinking, the first time I saw the new Chrysler K-Cars in 1980: Those look like they could be 1980 Studebaker LARKS!

Studebaker was well ahead of its time in the early 1960s introducing the luxury compact CRUISER. As the 1970s wore on and downsizing became a must due to government MPG regs and fuel crises, the "new idea" of a luxury compact was born with the Big 3 introducing various slimmed down luxury models.

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

Studedude1961

02-08-2008, 05:26 PM

From a purely STYLING standpoint only, I can remember thinking, the first time I saw the new Chrysler K-Cars in 1980: Those look like they could be 1980 Studebaker LARKS!

Studebaker was well ahead of its time in the early 1960s introducing the luxury compact CRUISER. As the 1970s wore on and downsizing became a must due to government MPG regs and fuel crises, the "new idea" of a luxury compact was born with the Big 3 introducing various slimmed down luxury models.

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

jnewkirk77

02-08-2008, 07:29 PM

quote:Originally posted by Studedude1961

From a purely STYLING standpoint only, I can remember thinking, the first time I saw the new Chrysler K-Cars in 1980: Those look like they could be 1980 Studebaker LARKS!

Studebaker was well ahead of its time in the early 1960s introducing the luxury compact CRUISER. As the 1970s wore on and downsizing became a must due to government MPG regs and fuel crises, the "new idea" of a luxury compact was born with the Big 3 introducing various slimmed down luxury models.

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

Well, don't forget, Bob Marcks (who, with his partners in Marcks Hazelquist Powers, is credited with the '66 Stude facelift) was working at Chrysler in design and product planning during those years. So I don't think it's a coincidence that the K-cars got similar lines. The origin of the "sharp lined" or "sheer" look is often credited to GM, but I really think Studebaker was, yet once more, ahead of its time with the '64-65-66 models.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77

02-08-2008, 07:29 PM

quote:Originally posted by Studedude1961

From a purely STYLING standpoint only, I can remember thinking, the first time I saw the new Chrysler K-Cars in 1980: Those look like they could be 1980 Studebaker LARKS!

Studebaker was well ahead of its time in the early 1960s introducing the luxury compact CRUISER. As the 1970s wore on and downsizing became a must due to government MPG regs and fuel crises, the "new idea" of a luxury compact was born with the Big 3 introducing various slimmed down luxury models.

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

Well, don't forget, Bob Marcks (who, with his partners in Marcks Hazelquist Powers, is credited with the '66 Stude facelift) was working at Chrysler in design and product planning during those years. So I don't think it's a coincidence that the K-cars got similar lines. The origin of the "sharp lined" or "sheer" look is often credited to GM, but I really think Studebaker was, yet once more, ahead of its time with the '64-65-66 models.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

8E45E

02-08-2008, 10:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

What I cannot envision is the Studebaker corporation re-tooling for a 4 cylinder engine, even in cast iron, with a light duty trans to go with it. Shoot, even the change to a 13" tire and wheel would mean all new wheel end components. Even if they outsourced it all, I just can't envision them doing it.
But I can envision the boardroom squabbles![}:)]
Jeff[8D]

Apparently, Studebaker was well under way tooling for this engine when the axe came down on Harold Churchill. There are lots of regular Stude part numbers cast on the various components of this engine that is in the museum.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2104/2251203111_02848e450f_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/2251202333_a77c06d7ab_b.jpg

Craig

8E45E

02-08-2008, 10:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

What I cannot envision is the Studebaker corporation re-tooling for a 4 cylinder engine, even in cast iron, with a light duty trans to go with it. Shoot, even the change to a 13" tire and wheel would mean all new wheel end components. Even if they outsourced it all, I just can't envision them doing it.
But I can envision the boardroom squabbles![}:)]
Jeff[8D]

Apparently, Studebaker was well under way tooling for this engine when the axe came down on Harold Churchill. There are lots of regular Stude part numbers cast on the various components of this engine that is in the museum.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2104/2251203111_02848e450f_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/2251202333_a77c06d7ab_b.jpg

Craig

gordr

02-09-2008, 01:34 AM

Right, Craig. And we shouldn't forget the fact that the Lark six is probably the only inline six of the era that has a short enough block to enable it to be mounted transversely in a FWD configuration.

I recall there was a proposal to produce a small Studebaker with a molded plastic body, and a Lark six mounted transversely, driving the front wheels.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

gordr

02-09-2008, 01:34 AM

Right, Craig. And we shouldn't forget the fact that the Lark six is probably the only inline six of the era that has a short enough block to enable it to be mounted transversely in a FWD configuration.

I recall there was a proposal to produce a small Studebaker with a molded plastic body, and a Lark six mounted transversely, driving the front wheels.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

8E45E

02-09-2008, 04:22 AM

quote:Originally posted by gordr

I recall there was a proposal to produce a small Studebaker with a molded plastic body, and a Lark six mounted transversely, driving the front wheels.

Yep, but unfortunately, it only existed on paper.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2096/2251632529_58f893710f_b.jpg

Craig

8E45E

02-09-2008, 04:22 AM

quote:Originally posted by gordr

I recall there was a proposal to produce a small Studebaker with a molded plastic body, and a Lark six mounted transversely, driving the front wheels.

Yep, but unfortunately, it only existed on paper.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2096/2251632529_58f893710f_b.jpg

Craig

8E45E

02-09-2008, 05:06 AM

quote:Originally posted by wise raymond

GOOD EVENING, I,am sorry to disagree but. can u imagine if thay had brought out the new little car called the studebaker swallow possible around 1966-68 getting 2-3 years jump start on the compation fords,pinto or chevy,chevet,ect. rawise

I think you mean the Sparrow; not 'Swallow'. Sir William Lyons from Jaguar Cars would have descended upon South Bend with the entire British Army surrounding the factory in full combat gear, forcing a plant lockdown until Studebaker relinquised that name as outright plagerism had Studebaker applied the Swallow name to a car.[:0]

Craig

8E45E

02-09-2008, 05:06 AM

quote:Originally posted by wise raymond

GOOD EVENING, I,am sorry to disagree but. can u imagine if thay had brought out the new little car called the studebaker swallow possible around 1966-68 getting 2-3 years jump start on the compation fords,pinto or chevy,chevet,ect. rawise

I think you mean the Sparrow; not 'Swallow'. Sir William Lyons from Jaguar Cars would have descended upon South Bend with the entire British Army surrounding the factory in full combat gear, forcing a plant lockdown until Studebaker relinquised that name as outright plagerism had Studebaker applied the Swallow name to a car.[:0]

Craig

Neil

02-09-2008, 05:30 AM

In my opinion,the proposed new design with interchangable body panels,etc. is the type of car this new Studebaker Motor Co should be thinking of producing.Not that it would ever happen but it could at least loan some credability to the idea of a new Studebaker again.

Neil

02-09-2008, 05:30 AM

In my opinion,the proposed new design with interchangable body panels,etc. is the type of car this new Studebaker Motor Co should be thinking of producing.Not that it would ever happen but it could at least loan some credability to the idea of a new Studebaker again.

DEEPNHOCK

02-09-2008, 05:41 AM

Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.
(and it sure 'looks' Studebaker).
I always thought it was a Porsche project injected into Studebaker.
You learn something new every day.
Thanks for the update.
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by 8E45E
Apparently, Studebaker was well under way tooling for this engine when the axe came down on Harold Churchill. There are lots of regular Stude part numbers cast on the various components of this engine that is in the museum.
Craig

DEEPNHOCK

02-09-2008, 05:41 AM

Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.
(and it sure 'looks' Studebaker).
I always thought it was a Porsche project injected into Studebaker.
You learn something new every day.
Thanks for the update.
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by 8E45E
Apparently, Studebaker was well under way tooling for this engine when the axe came down on Harold Churchill. There are lots of regular Stude part numbers cast on the various components of this engine that is in the museum.
Craig

gordr

02-09-2008, 09:09 AM

[quote]Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.
(and it sure 'looks' Studebaker).
I always thought it was a Porsche project injected into Studebaker.
You learn something new every day.
Thanks for the update.
Jeff[8D]

You know, Jeff, the horizontal-opposed design sure does look Porsche, or maybe VW. I've seen this engine in the museum, and externally, it sure looks like Studebaker parts. But it would have been real easy for the Studebaker engineering shop to have designed a block and heads around a Porsche or VW crankshaft and camshaft, wouldn't it? Fairly easy to make some one-off or low production castings when you have a foundry. I expect it would more costly to make forging dies for a few crankshafts.

I wonder if the Museum, or the owner of the engine would permit a careful teardown, under the watchful eye of a video camera? It'd be almost like an archaeological dig.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

gordr

02-09-2008, 09:09 AM

[quote]Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.
(and it sure 'looks' Studebaker).
I always thought it was a Porsche project injected into Studebaker.
You learn something new every day.
Thanks for the update.
Jeff[8D]

You know, Jeff, the horizontal-opposed design sure does look Porsche, or maybe VW. I've seen this engine in the museum, and externally, it sure looks like Studebaker parts. But it would have been real easy for the Studebaker engineering shop to have designed a block and heads around a Porsche or VW crankshaft and camshaft, wouldn't it? Fairly easy to make some one-off or low production castings when you have a foundry. I expect it would more costly to make forging dies for a few crankshafts.

I wonder if the Museum, or the owner of the engine would permit a careful teardown, under the watchful eye of a video camera? It'd be almost like an archaeological dig.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

8E45E

02-09-2008, 09:11 AM

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

[navy][b]Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.

Most definitely!!:) There is a great write-up by one of the former engineers on the project in your September, 2005 Turning Wheels.

Craig

8E45E

02-09-2008, 09:11 AM

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

[navy][b]Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.

Most definitely!!:) There is a great write-up by one of the former engineers on the project in your September, 2005 Turning Wheels.

Craig

556063

02-10-2008, 08:43 AM

The regulatory landscape ahead of Studebaker by 1963 no doubt played into the decision to quit building cars when they did. By 1963, the Board of Directors would have had to have seen the increasing pressure for costly regulation, and the building undercurrent by some powerful forces to sway public opinion against the auto industry. I agree with you 100% tutone63.

Every investment in business is about payback. The 1957-8 development of the Lark used much of the existing technology and for a relatively small amount of money, they were able to produce something that looked all new. That was as far as the existing hardware could take them. That's why some of the designs discussed here were considered. They were more radical, and included more money and risk. Risk the Board of Directors felt was larger than the smallest car company at the time could take.

We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

556063

02-10-2008, 08:43 AM

The regulatory landscape ahead of Studebaker by 1963 no doubt played into the decision to quit building cars when they did. By 1963, the Board of Directors would have had to have seen the increasing pressure for costly regulation, and the building undercurrent by some powerful forces to sway public opinion against the auto industry. I agree with you 100% tutone63.

Every investment in business is about payback. The 1957-8 development of the Lark used much of the existing technology and for a relatively small amount of money, they were able to produce something that looked all new. That was as far as the existing hardware could take them. That's why some of the designs discussed here were considered. They were more radical, and included more money and risk. Risk the Board of Directors felt was larger than the smallest car company at the time could take.

We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

tutone63

02-10-2008, 01:24 PM

quote:Originally posted by 556063

We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1
I always wondered why the VW bug was dicontinued when it was, I guess I never put two and two together. Thanks also for mentioning good ole' Ralphie boy and the Corviar. I had forgotten to mention them earlier.
You are right about the parts. That woulda sucked.

tutone63

02-10-2008, 01:24 PM

quote:Originally posted by 556063

We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1
I always wondered why the VW bug was dicontinued when it was, I guess I never put two and two together. Thanks also for mentioning good ole' Ralphie boy and the Corviar. I had forgotten to mention them earlier.
You are right about the parts. That woulda sucked.

556063

02-10-2008, 06:42 PM

I am by no means or in any way a tax accountant, but I believe current law would also allow credit for the disposal of excess parts regardless of age if it could be proven that the onhand supply is likely to exceed anticipated demand. What would happen is you would take part unit sales and extrapolate them into the future, to estimate what needed to be onhand to fulfill future orders. Anything over that in inventory could be destroyed and written off for credit. It would have taken some manpower to figure all that out in 1966, but the return to the company would have been too much to ignore.

It's ironic that parts for cars from companies still in business are harder to find than Stude parts. This tax and accounting situation is partly responsible for that. Good inventory management practices are responsible for it too.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

556063

02-10-2008, 06:42 PM

I am by no means or in any way a tax accountant, but I believe current law would also allow credit for the disposal of excess parts regardless of age if it could be proven that the onhand supply is likely to exceed anticipated demand. What would happen is you would take part unit sales and extrapolate them into the future, to estimate what needed to be onhand to fulfill future orders. Anything over that in inventory could be destroyed and written off for credit. It would have taken some manpower to figure all that out in 1966, but the return to the company would have been too much to ignore.

It's ironic that parts for cars from companies still in business are harder to find than Stude parts. This tax and accounting situation is partly responsible for that. Good inventory management practices are responsible for it too.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

BobPalma

02-10-2008, 07:11 PM

:) You bet, Kevin! 'Just ask the AMC enthusiasts what happened to all the 1968 (or thereabouts) and newer AMC parts when Chrysler bought AMC to get the Jeep brand! [:0]:([}:)] :D BP

BobPalma

02-10-2008, 07:11 PM

:) You bet, Kevin! 'Just ask the AMC enthusiasts what happened to all the 1968 (or thereabouts) and newer AMC parts when Chrysler bought AMC to get the Jeep brand! [:0]:([}:)] :D BP